|
|
|
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
![[Masthead]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 78°F ~ Low: 64°F Saturday, May 25, 2013 |
|
Baby BoomPosted Friday, February 6, 2009, at 1:06 PM
This morning I saw Nadya Suleman, the single mother of six who recently gave birth to eight more children, interviewed by Ann Curry on the Today Show. Suleman kept her identity secret for a while after her octuplets were born, and if I were she, I would have left it that way.
Appearing on the Today Show did nothing to raise her in my opinion; in fact, it might have done the opposite. I am still appalled that anyone could be so selfish and irresponsible. Among other things, Suleman talked about going to graduate school and becoming a counselor, so that she can support her children. How could she have time to study and take care of all those children, and how could she afford it? According to msn.com, the cost of raising one child from birth to age 17 can range from $118,590 to $250,260 for single parents, which is at minimum about $100,000 per year for 14 kids. When I was in China, almost everyone I met in my age group was an only child, thanks to the country's one-child policy implemented to help control its ever-growing population, which is currently over 1.3 billion people. These young Chinese seemed to have close relationships with their parents, which is not always the case here at home. But of course, a lot is expected of them because they are the only children their parents have. There are some exceptions to the one-child rule. People from the rural areas are allowed two children per family. Bing, one of my tour guides, had a brother because his mother convinced doctors at the local hospital to falsely diagnose Bing with a heart condition, which would allow her to have a second child. Although China's population control policy is fairly harsh, I don't know if it's a totally wrong idea. Placing a limit on the number of children a woman can have would certainly make her more conscientious about her choices, which would hopefully reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and incidents of child abuse and neglect. It would also prevent crazies like Suleman from having children with reckless abandon. In theory, I am against such a regulation; but in reality, I don't trust people to be responsible about having children, because many aren't already. As an only child myself, with a great relationship with both my parents, I can say that small families are just that -- small. But that does not make them any less nurturing or supportive, only quieter. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Little Town Blues Goes to China  - Archives - Blog RSS feed ![[Feed icon]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon} - Comments RSS feed - Send email to SYDNEY STONNER - Login Something about music. Something about small towns. Something about Hong Kong. Or maybe something else entirely.
Sydney is a former staff writer for the Democrat-News. She received degrees from University of Missouri in both music and magazine journalism. She played oboe with the Marshall Philharmonic Orchestra and the Marshall Municipal Band while she was in Marshall. Hot topics What a Difference a Year Makes(0 ~ 5:40 AM, May 22)
No Room for Shyness
Yes We Can (go to Japan)
The Doorman Always Rings Twice
The Disaster in Japan, as seen from Hong Kong
|
Email link
Read comments (8)
Blog archive
Number 1. I came from a family of 5 and we are very close with eachother and with our parents.
Number 2. You don't know Sulemans situation and what she wants out of life. Its her choice to have as many babies she wants. Who are you to judge and base an opinion on someone you don't know and somone who's shoes you have never walked in. Its not our business how many children she has. What about all of the couples they show on TLC? John and Kate plus 8? Or that family of 13? Should they be limited to the number of children they have? They both seem like very loving families and seem to be very happy.
Number 3. You mentioned the cost of raising a child. Although its high, you have to refer to the old saying. If you wait intil you have the money to have children, you will never have them.
Number 4. Finally, nobody will tell me how many children I'm going to have. As long as they are happy and healthy that's all that matters.
Please understand I'm by no means attacking you or how you feel, this is just a very passionate subject. After a read it I had to comment!
i agree with the attention thing, if it were me i would have left my identity a secret but i also agree with jl32320 i dont like the idea of someone telling me how many kids i can have but i think 14 is wayyy to many in my book, but as long as she is taking care of them and they are healthy and she isnt just having kids to get money whats the big deal?
What is most appalling about this case is that there is no regulation in this industry, therefore, no accountability. Only guidelines.
There is no way that at least 8 embryos should have been implanted into this or any woman. There is always the possiblity that all the implanted embryos will become viable fetus. The health risks associated with carrying this many babies are very high, to both the mother and the babies. It should be malpractice to purposely risk a woman's life and the life of her potential children by implanting more than what would be a safe amount of children to carry if all the embryos result in viable fetuses.
I don't think limiting the amount of children one can have is a good idea in either theory or reality.
But I would bet you a good chunk of change this woman didn't say to herself, "Hey, I feel like having eight children at once!" No, I seriously doubt this was intentional. What shouldn't be allowed is hospitals or doctors to implant eight embryos into a single womb.
(And as side note, I believe each one is implanted separately with a needle through the belly, so just for that reason eight is way too many.)
In Britain, whenever a woman has this procedure done only two embryos are implanted at once. That, in my opinion, is what should be limited. There is absolutely no reason to not limit it to two embryos at a time, and the Suleman incident would never have been allowed to occur.
I don't think this is necessarily the woman's fault as much as the hospital's, and even the government's for not regulating the embryo limit to begin with. Therefore, if you ask me, the hospital or at least the California government should be partially responsible for the well being of eight human beings who have small chance of survival, let alone growing up with the nurturing all children need.
Again, the amount of children should never be limited -- the number of embryos implanted should absolutely be, and if it's not limited in Missouri I say we better make it that way!
The thing that bothers me about this story is not the number of children involved, per se, but the immaturity and selfishness displayed. In my opinion you can have as many children as you like, as long as you can SUPPORT them. If this mother wanted to go to graduate school, fine. Maybe she should have waited to have her children artificially implanted until AFTER she had attained that goal and could afford them. Who is going to support those 14 children until she gets her degree? Tax payers, plain and simple. It seems almost like she's blackmailing the American public...since she already has the kids and everything, we should want to HELP her attain her goals for the childrens' sakes. GAG.
I'm not saying she's a bad person. It's obvious that she loves children and probably does want the best for them. My problem is the lack of forsight she showed by bringing them into the world without considering the longterm consequences.
The same goes for all of the reality show debris floating around cable and satellite networks any given day. Children are NOT meant to be career builders. If you have to sell your soul to TLC (or the like) so that the Cheeto-munching American public can watch you in your "natural simulated environment" like the monkeys at the zoo, then you have too many kids. Your children should be sponsored by YOU, not by Pampers or Gerber.
I say if you can afford to support your children on your own, then there should be no limit. If not, then I, as a taxayer think one is plenty. I can barely afford my own. I should not have to support other peoples kids, just because they want a big family.So...help control the population, get yourself fixed!!!!
This woman is a very selffish individual. She is living at home with mommy, has no visable means of support but she wants babies so some idiot doctor agrees to AI. What is wrong with this picture? Do you really think this was a smart thing? I don't want anyone telling me how many children I can have either but the Good Lord gave me enough common sense to know when to stop. As for comparing her to Jon and Kate plus 8. Please note there is a mother and a father and they have their own home!
If Nadya were a child care provider, whether in a daycare/preschool setting, or a licensed home sitter, the state would walk in and shut her down immediately. Child care centers are strictly regulated on how many child one person can care for without being abusive or negligent. There is very good reason for this too. This many children, someone is going to get hurt, missed, lost whatever. It truly makes my heart ache for the eight, for the six, for the grandparent, and the future children of the Suleman children who will have no knowledge of what only close, loving parenting can provide.